I think what you're seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:
- Change this one thing and everyone will be better off for it.
- An ideal world would have this feature.
I think what you're seeing is that there are two groups of people interpreting it in two different ways:
Cloud housing when?
Some are less unethical than others.
No /s
This is a great variant to regular pizza when you happen to have the ingredients on hand. I do it all the time.
So when you say "I believe in objective morality", you mean that you believe morality should be objective, not that it is objective. I'm inclined to agree because that would certainly simplify life a lot, but unfortunately, you can't just make morality objective any more than you can make gravity not exist. It is what it is, and we have to figure out a way to work with what we have.
So morality is relative in a society that doesn't have a proper moral framework?
I think you missed the "indirect" part. This isn't someone going around stabbing people. It's someone who goes obstructing people from getting medication or medical treatment that they need, or from acquiring food, or someone who indiscriminately gets people fired from their jobs and put on the streets where they'll die a slow death.
Regarding solitary confinement: As an individual, you don't have the power to detain someone in that manner. But you do have the power to kill.
Any honest conversation about a situation will end up with two people, happily or not, having to admit there's one path more moral than others
You don't say that they agree on which path is more moral than the other, but I'm assuming that's what you mean. But also, no, that doesn't happen. In an honest conversation where you disagree on morals, you just learn that you both have different values.
There are some things that more people are likely to agree on, like your example about stealing a towel from a hotel. But there are also many that people vehemently disagree on. For example, is it morally right to kill someone who has (and will continue to) indirectly kill many of other people?
The effect may be considerable in a few centuries
Hahahaha
ha
:c
Academic Authors: $0
FAKE NEWS
This should be in the negatives. We have to pay to get papers published in these traditional journals.
I searched through Lemmy posts with that word. Half of them have people asking the exact same question, and based on the answers, I'm going to conclude that no one knows.
One guess that seems plausible is that it's an AI hallucinated word that's showing up a lot because they're using AI to generate the captions.
Turns out Benjamin Franklin had it right, and it was this time traveler that caused him to flip it to the wrong direction.